The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on October 1, 2008, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered a Final Judgment, by consent, against Defendant Carmine J. Bua ordering him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $3,820, prejudgment interest in the amount of $284 and imposing a civil penalty of $40,000. Previously, on May 28, 2008, the Court entered a Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief, by consent, against Bua. On September 5, 2008, the Court also entered Judgments, by consent, against Pietro Cimino, Philip Pritchard and Global Development & Environmental Resources, Inc., and against Anthony M. Cimini on January 14, 2009. The Judgments enjoin: Global from violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"); Bua and Cimini from violations of Section 5 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act; and Pritchard and Cimino from violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. The Judgments against Bua, Cimino, Pritchard and Cimini also bar them from participating in an offering of a penny stock and permanently bar Cimino, Prichard and Cimini from acting as officers or directors of a public company registered with the Commission. Finally, the Judgments against Global, Pritchard, Cimino and Cimini provide for disgorgement with prejudgment interest and the potential imposition of civil penalties, in amounts to be determined by the Court upon the Commission's motion.

The Commission commenced this action by filing its complaint on May 22, 2008, against the above-mentioned defendants, among others. The complaint alleged the defendants engaged in a complex scheme to evade the registration provisions of the federal securities laws by creating a fraudulently backdated convertible promissory note, using a forged assignment to assign the note to three foreign entities, and then converting the note into purportedly unrestricted Global shares. The complaint also alleged that Bua drafted the assignment and legal opinion letter authorizing the issuance of the purportedly unrestricted shares, despite possessing information which undermined the validity of the note and its subsequent assignment.